Metals and mining groups welcomed the recent move by the US SEC to scale back its climate disclosure rule, although some expressed concern about incoming requirements being overly burdensome for the industry.

The finalized rule will mandate publicly traded companies valued at more than $75 million to report material Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, with some reporting requirements beginning in 2026. The commission decided March 6 that the rule would not include contentious Scope 3 emissions reporting requirements. While the SEC is already facing lawsuits in response to the decision, some of the rule's language and changes from earlier renditions are unsurprising, mirroring alterations metals and mining groups had previously pushed for.

"Honestly, the ruling is consistent with where I thought the SEC would come out on required disclosures," Meaghan Connors, counsel in the banking and finance practice at the Mayer Brown law firm, told S&P Global Commodity Insights in an email. "While targeting to reduce Scope 3 emissions by mining companies is admirable (and, of course, quite helpful for the US to reach its net zero goals as the mining industry is pivotal in the process), requiring tracking and disclosure by mining companies of Scope 3 admissions wherein they have very little control over the downstream actions by third parties in their value chains, would be very difficult on these companies."

Falling in line

In addition to supporting the removal of the Scope 3 disclosure requirement, metals and mining groups endorsed the SEC's approach to "material" climate-related risks.

"SEC's concessions on excluding small businesses, Scope 3 emissions, and immaterial disclosures echo the requests made by the Aluminum Association and industry coalitions in comments and advocacy," the Aluminum Association trade group said in a March 8 newsletter.

Industry groups, including the National Mining Association, had previously said in comments to the SEC that its rule would require the disclosure of "immaterial" climate-related risks, biasing investors against energy-intensive companies.

Hesitation remains

Despite the removal of Scope 3 disclosure requirements, some in the industry still balked at the imposition of new reporting rules, although they expressed approval for transparency efforts broadly.

"We at the [Critical Minerals Institute] are fully supportive of transparency in the mineral extraction sector, although we are cautious about overly burdening the regulatory process for the juniors," Peter Clausi, director of the Critical Minerals Institute industry group, said in a statement.

Others pointed to existing efforts to expand emissions transparency.

"[We] last fall released our own recommended steel industry greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculation guidelines, which we developed in conjunction with our steel producer members," Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said in an emailed statement. "American steel producers already publicly report our GHG emissions — and we are committed to remaining transparent, accurate and outspoken in our advocacy on decarbonization-related activities."

Climate disclosures within the metals and mining industry have expanded in recent years, although there is no primary, widely accepted reporting metric, and Scope 3 emissions disclosures are scarce.

The National Mining Association and Battery Materials and Technology Coalition declined to comment for this story. The Copper Development Association, Cobalt Institute and International Zinc Association did not respond to comment requests.